Was Joshua a Gentile?

[Gxg (G²)]

There is no plain text regarding Gentiles in Joshua.

Joshua was in the tabernacle Exo 33:11 when Moses said to the Lord " so shall we be separated,I and thy people, from all the people that [are] upon the face of the earth."

If a Gentile wishes to seperate himself to the Lord, he must become an alien resident, which was impossible at the time of Moses, because the Children of Israel had not come into the land and taken it for a possession. Yet, Joshua was a high priest, even sitting within the tabernacle.

Doesn't erase the reality that Gentiles were included among the Israelites when it came to their ancestrial birth. That's a plain reality with examples like Ruth, from Gentile nations who became included when they joined together as converts--and the line of Ephraim itself had a Gentile background for anyone seriously reading the life/times of Joseph and how he raised his family in Egypt. Their being seperated unto the Lord doesn't change the fact that they had a Gentile background. Joshua was never stated in scripture to be a high priest, as that was reserved exclusively for the Levitical line. One could be a priest, however, in the style of Melchizedek--as Genesis 14 is clear on how Melchizedek (king of righteousness) was a priest of the Most High....a priest-king linked to Jerusalem, seeing that "Salem" is possibly a shortened version of "Jerusalem" (Psalm 76:2) and is related to shalom, the Hebrew word for "peace" (Hebrews 7:2). ..

Others similar to Melchizedek were folks such as Job or Jethro.

Job himself was a righteous man after God whom God highly favored---with many scholars saying that Job actually existed way before Abraham did. The Israelite author presents Job as a person living in Uz, which is outside the borders of Israel itself ---and His piety (Job 1:1) exemplifies the ideal in Israelite wisdom and He invokes the name of Yahweh (Job 1:21). But at the same time, his relationship to Abraham's offspring remains a mystery. The events of the book seem to be set in the times of the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The way Ezekiel 14:14 and Ezekiel 14:20 refer to Job along with two others apparently from ancient times enhances this impression....and so do the favorite names for the deity, God" (Hb. 'Eloah, the singular of 'Elohim) and "the Almighty" (Hb. Shadday), which seem more suited to the days before the Exodus 3:14 and Exodus 6:3 instances. The name Yahweh, the Lord, appear only in Job 1-2 and Job 38-42, with one lone exception in the middle of the book, 12:9). Again, the prophet Ezekiel mentions Job along with Noah and Daniel, and this seems to imply that he took Job as a real perosn. This is also the implication of James 5:11. With what was noted by Ezekiel, its interesting to see Noah and Job listed together---as Noah and Job are well-known righteous men of the past (Genesis 6:9, Job 1:1)..and Noah existed before the era after the Flood. Its possible that Job either existed at the same time as Noah or came directly after Him. Just a thought, as it concerns those whom God chose to reveal His standards.

But the text makes clear Job was in the form of a priest, making sacrifices for the sake of his children/family and intercedding for them..

The same occurred with Jethro, as Jethro stood outside of the Covenant Community...yet displayed uncanny knowledge of God. With Jethro, in Exodus 18, he was a priest of Midian (Exodus 3:1, Exodus 4:18)...and in light of the difficulty of both Egypt and the journey to Rephidim, Jethro's coming to meet Moses displays a relational posture of peace and encouragement, similar to when Aaron met Moses "at the mountain of God on his return from Midian (Exodus 4:27-31). Amazingly, after simply hearing about what the Lord had done on Israel's belalf, Jethro's words and actions represent a more faithful response than came from many of those who had experienced the events in Egypt (not to mention Egypt itself, as well as Amalek). For when he says, "Now I know that the Lord is greater than all gods" in verse 11, he echoes the purpose that the Lord said the plagues were to have for both Israel (Exodus 6:7) and Egypt (Exodus 7:5, Exodus 7:15). When Jethro brought burnt offerings and sacrifices and ate before God with Moses, Aaron and the elders, he prefigured the pattern of life that the Lord would reveal further at Mount Sinai (Deuteronomy 12:5-7). Moreover, Jethro was used by the Lord to help him find a faithful and workable way to have others bear the burden of judging the people and ensuring their well-being (Exodus 18:13-26).

Both Jethro and Job were very much similar to what occurred with Melchizedek, being a priest yet not having to be one according to Levitical standard.

One thing you have to learn here: It isn't the Gentile that saves the Jew by being grafted in

Actually, when reading Romans 11 and Romans 15, Paul makes clear that the Jews would be conversely aided by the Gentiles in their own salvation by their being grafted in/impacting them...

Romans 15:27
But now that there is no more place for me to work in these regions, and since I have been longing for many years to visit you, 24 I plan to do so when I go to Spain. I hope to see you while passing through and to have you assist me on my journey there, after I have enjoyed your company for a while. 25 Now, however, I am on my way to Jerusalem in the service of the Lord’s people there. 26They were pleased to do it, and indeed they owe it to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in the Jews’ spiritual blessings, they owe it to the Jews to share with them their material blessings.
Romans 15:26-28 Romans 15
​

More was said in scripture besides that, as the Jews themselves are not saved simply by basis of their ethnicity--more discussed here in The Condition of Salvation - For Jews and Gentiles in this Age ... and The Wisdom of God and the Wisdom of Man (Romans 11:25-36 ...






According to the Apostle Paul, Gentiles were to be God’s provoking mechanism (Rom. 11:14), provoking them by walking in righteousness (Mt. 5:16), moving in the supernatural (1 Cor. 1:22), preaching the gospel (Rom. 10:14–15), fasting, and praying (Isa. 62:6; 58:6–9). And it's always amazing to consider how many Jews have often noted how thankful they were for Gentiles being used to preach to them the Gospel---helping to show them the heart of the Lord for His people rather than thinking Jews alone were the ones that saved.


Neither Jew nor Gentile has room for pride in saying only ONE side saved the other.


One thing you need to consider is that it was never about the Jews saving others outside of the Lord's hand--and He used both Gentile/Jew to make ONE people who'd look to Him for salvation

 

[visionary]

There is no plain text regarding Gentiles in Joshua.

Joshua was in the tabernacle Exo 33:11 when Moses said to the Lord " so shall we be separated,I and thy people, from all the people that [are] upon the face of the earth."

If a Gentile wishes to seperate himself to the Lord, he must become an alien resident, which was impossible at the time of Moses, because the Children of Israel had not come into the land and taken it for a possession. Yet, Joshua was a high priest, even sitting within the tabernacle.

One thing you have to learn here: It isn't the Gentile that saves the Jew by being grafted in.

Different than Melchizedek rules...

 

[Huram Abi]

Doesn't erase the reality that Gentiles were included among the Israelites when it came to their ancestrial birth. That's a plain reality with examples like Ruth, from Gentile nations who became included when they joined together as converts--and the line of Ephraim itself had a Gentile background for anyone seriously reading the life/times of Joseph and how he raised his family in Egypt. Their being seperated unto the Lord doesn't change the fact that they had a Gentile background. Joshua was never stated in scripture to be a high priest, as that was reserved exclusively for the Levitical line. One could be a priest, however, in the style of Melchizedek--as Genesis 14 is clear on how Melchizedek (king of righteousness) was a priest of the Most High....a priest-king linked to Jerusalem, seeing that "Salem" is possibly a shortened version of "Jerusalem" (Psalm 76:2) and is related to shalom, the Hebrew word for "peace" (Hebrews 7:2). ..

Others similar to Melchizedek were folks such as Job or Jethro.

Job himself was a righteous man after God whom God highly favored---with many scholars saying that Job actually existed way before Abraham did. The Israelite author presents Job as a person living in Uz, which is outside the borders of Israel itself ---and His piety (Job 1:1) exemplifies the ideal in Israelite wisdom and He invokes the name of Yahweh (Job 1:21). But at the same time, his relationship to Abraham's offspring remains a mystery. The events of the book seem to be set in the times of the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The way Ezekiel 14:14 and Ezekiel 14:20 refer to Job along with two others apparently from ancient times enhances this impression....and so do the favorite names for the deity, God" (Hb. 'Eloah, the singular of 'Elohim) and "the Almighty" (Hb. Shadday), which seem more suited to the days before the Exodus 3:14 and Exodus 6:3 instances. The name Yahweh, the Lord, appear only in Job 1-2 and Job 38-42, with one lone exception in the middle of the book, 12:9). Again, the prophet Ezekiel mentions Job along with Noah and Daniel, and this seems to imply that he took Job as a real perosn. This is also the implication of James 5:11. With what was noted by Ezekiel, its interesting to see Noah and Job listed together---as Noah and Job are well-known righteous men of the past (Genesis 6:9, Job 1:1)..and Noah existed before the era after the Flood. Its possible that Job either existed at the same time as Noah or came directly after Him. Just a thought, as it concerns those whom God chose to reveal His standards.

But the text makes clear Job was in the form of a priest, making sacrifices for the sake of his children/family and intercedding for them..

The same occurred with Jethro, as Jethro stood outside of the Covenant Community...yet displayed uncanny knowledge of God. With Jethro, in Exodus 18, he was a priest of Midian (Exodus 3:1, Exodus 4:18)...and in light of the difficulty of both Egypt and the journey to Rephidim, Jethro's coming to meet Moses displays a relational posture of peace and encouragement, similar to when Aaron met Moses "at the mountain of God on his return from Midian (Exodus 4:27-31). Amazingly, after simply hearing about what the Lord had done on Israel's belalf, Jethro's words and actions represent a more faithful response than came from many of those who had experienced the events in Egypt (not to mention Egypt itself, as well as Amalek). For when he says, "Now I know that the Lord is greater than all gods" in verse 11, he echoes the purpose that the Lord said the plagues were to have for both Israel (Exodus 6:7) and Egypt (Exodus 7:5, Exodus 7:15). When Jethro brought burnt offerings and sacrifices and ate before God with Moses, Aaron and the elders, he prefigured the pattern of life that the Lord would reveal further at Mount Sinai (Deuteronomy 12:5-7). Moreover, Jethro was used by the Lord to help him find a faithful and workable way to have others bear the burden of judging the people and ensuring their well-being (Exodus 18:13-26).

Both Jethro and Job were very much similar to what occurred with Melchizedek, being a priest yet not having to be one according to Levitical standard.
Actually, when reading Romans 11 and Romans 15, Paul makes clear that the Jews would be conversely aided by the Gentiles in their own salvation by their being grafted in/impacting them...

Romans 15:27
But now that there is no more place for me to work in these regions, and since I have been longing for many years to visit you, 24 I plan to do so when I go to Spain. I hope to see you while passing through and to have you assist me on my journey there, after I have enjoyed your company for a while. 25 Now, however, I am on my way to Jerusalem in the service of the Lord’s people there. 26They were pleased to do it, and indeed they owe it to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in the Jews’ spiritual blessings, they owe it to the Jews to share with them their material blessings.
Romans 15:26-28 Romans 15
​

More was said in scripture besides that, as the Jews themselves are not saved simply by basis of their ethnicity--more discussed here in The Condition of Salvation - For Jews and Gentiles in this Age ... and The Wisdom of God and the Wisdom of Man (Romans 11:25-36 ...






According to the Apostle Paul, Gentiles were to be God’s provoking mechanism (Rom. 11:14), provoking them by walking in righteousness (Mt. 5:16), moving in the supernatural (1 Cor. 1:22), preaching the gospel (Rom. 10:14–15), fasting, and praying (Isa. 62:6; 58:6–9). And it's always amazing to consider how many Jews have often noted how thankful they were for Gentiles being used to preach to them the Gospel---helping to show them the heart of the Lord for His people rather than thinking Jews alone were the ones that saved.


Neither Jew nor Gentile has room for pride in saying only ONE side saved the other.


One thing you need to consider is that it was never about the Jews saving others outside of the Lord's hand--and He used both Gentile/Jew to make ONE people who'd look to Him for salvation

It would be great if you would drop the Gish's Gallop and stick to the subject.

I don't care about what Paul says, he wasn't there.

Ruth isn't relevant, either.

 

[Huram Abi]

Different than Melchizedek rules...

Can you expound?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

It would be great if you would drop the Gish's Gallop and stick to the subject.
.

When you address the subject of scripture in context, you may have room to speak on sticking to subject--as nothing you mentioned about Joshua being a priest was either according to scripture or on subject

I don't care about what Paul says, he wasn't there.

Thus, you really have no room talking about concern for scripture---as what Paul said echoed what already occurred in the OT---and again, the OT doesn't even go with what you noted on Joshua somehow being a priest.

Ruth isn't relevant

Incorrect, especially when studying the OT and seeing the theme of Gentiles included in the Lord's people....and being apart of the Messianic line/preview for the One New Man. One cannot say they are concerned with the OT and then systematically ignore it

 

[Huram Abi]

The subject is whether Joshua was a Jew.

Admittance to the priesthood relies on bloodline.

It certainly IS relevant.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

The subject is whether Joshua was a Jew.

Incorrect, as the subject is whether Joshua was a Gentile--as well as discussing to what degree he was Gentile.


It certainly IS relevant.

Admittance to the priesthood relies on bloodline.

He wasn't a priest--and that's NOWHERE in scripture trying to say otherwise. Thus, it is beyond what is relevant to Joshua..unless one wishes to make Joshua into a Levitical priest and show where he was connected to the tribe of Levi (of which only Aaron and Moses/their brothers and sons qualified). The closest one could come to anything with Joshua being a priest is within Haggai 1:1-3, Haggai 1:11-13 , Haggai 2:3-5 /Haggai 2 , Zechariah 3:1-3 /Zechariah 3, Zechariah 6:10-12/ Zechariah 6 and Ezra 3:1-3 and with a different Joshua mentioned who was in the priesthood..and also one who was a King, just as Melchizedek was

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Different than Melchizedek rules...

Spot on. One could be a priest in the style of Melchizedek--as Genesis 14 is clear on how Melchizedek (king of righteousness) was a priest of the Most High....a priest-king linked to Jerusalem, seeing that "Salem" is possibly a shortened version of "Jerusalem" (Psalm 76:2) and is related to shalom, the Hebrew word for "peace" (Hebrews 7:2).

Trying to bring anything of the Levitical priesthood to bear on the matter in saying Joshua was like that is woefully outside what the Torah actually says

 

[Huram Abi]

Joshua was in the tabernacle. What are the rules on who can be in the tabernacle?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Joshua was in the tabernacle. What are the rules on who can be in the tabernacle?

What are the rules for being a PRIEST in the land in Israel--as it concerns the tribal rights of who enters? The tabernacle of the Israelites was a highly restricted area. Only Aaron and his descendants were allowed inside the tabernacle to offer sacrifices (Leviticus 16:2-24 ). Aaron was a Levite—that is, a descendant of Jacob’s son Levi. To be a priest, one must be a Levite. On the other hand, not all Levites were priests. Only a particular family of Levites, the Kohathites, could become priests. Other Levites, however, were involved in the maintenance and transport of the tabernacle. Penalties for violating access to the tabernacle and its contents were so severe as to result in leprosy or death.

Moreover, the tabernacle of meeting that Moses was in was not the same as the Tabernacle later which required only Levities. Thus, trying to read a "priest" dynamic into Joshua's guarding the place Moses met with the Lord isn't the best (IMHO).



Again, what's in the book is in the Book--and the Law itself makes clear only those who were descendants of Levi are to minister. However, Joshua is from the tribe of Ephraim. One would have to deny what was written historically to go against the concept of only LEVITES being allowed into the temple....and the text makes clear that Nun was apart of the tribe from Joseph's children ( Exodus 33:10-12, Numbers 11:27-29 , Numbers 13:15-17 , Numbers 14:29-31 , Numbers 26:64-65 , Numbers 27:17-19 , Numbers 32:11-13 , etc).

I Chronicles 7:20-26

Ephraim

20 The descendants of Ephraim:
Shuthelah, Bered his son,
Tahath his son, Eleadah his son,
Tahath his son, 21 Zabad his son
and Shuthelah his son.

Ezer and Elead were killed by the native-born men of Gath, when they went down to seize their livestock. 22 Their father Ephraim mourned for them many days, and his relatives came to comfort him. 23 Then he made love to his wife again, and she became pregnant and gave birth to a son. He named him Beriah,[] because there had been misfortune in his family. 24 His daughter was Sheerah, who built Lower and Upper Beth Horon as well as Uzzen Sheerah.

25 Rephah was his son, Resheph his son,[d
Telah his son, Tahan his son,
26 Ladan his son, Ammihud his son,
Elishama his son, 27 Nun his son
and Joshua his son.
​

If being in the tabernacle and not being a Levite, there's a similar dynamic that has happened elsewhere in scripture..such as with David making sacrifices (even though he was descended from the line of Judah and only priests were allowed to do that in the temple). This was in contrast to others such as King Saul (from the tribe of Benjamin) who offered sacrifices rather than waiting for a priest---and this was against God's laws in Deuteronomy 12:5-14 and against the specific instructions of Samuel in I Samuel 10:8.

Under pressure from the approaching Philistines, he took matters into his own hands...for He was doing a good thing (offering a sacrifice to God before a crucial battle) but he was considered as doing it in the wrong way. However, again, David and Solomon did the SAME THING---offering sacrifices as a king in I Kings 3:4, I Kings 8 and I Kings 8:62-63 when it came to the temple. David, Solomon, and other kings speak about the “many sacrifices they offered” (as a means to prove their personal piety)---with 1 Chronicles 21:27-29 ...and even David himself, not being a Levite, had SIGNIFICANT access with the priesthood and ability in shaping it in differing ways, especially as it concerned Praise/Worship ( 1 Chronicles 15:15-17 /, 2 Chronicles 7:5-7 , 2 Chronicles 8:13-15 2 Chronicles 29:25-27, Ezra 3:9-11 , 1 Chronicles 23:5-7 ) David was even allowed to eat the showbread that was meant for the priests to eat.



Some have sought to explain the issue by saying what David/Solomon did was a matter of reflecting a heart to worship the Lord---and others have said it was all connected to the Melchizedek dynamic. If those Judahites were priests after the order of Melchizedek, then maybe that is why Solomon and David got away with it. It also raises the question of how one would be a priest in the order of Melchizedek while at the same time witness a priesthood set up in the order of Levi....and how one would qualify for the Melchizedek version. One was obviously superior to the other and the Messiah came through the Mechizedek one to accomplish his work....and what's interesting is that there's no real record showing that Melchizedek was a Hebrew at the time of his meeting ABraham...even though they both were in the same vicinity.

David ate the bread which had been consecrated by the priests, as we read in 1 Samuel 21:1-6. David tells Abimelech in verse 2 that he is alone because the king has charged him with a matter, and thus he has gone about his business. After speaking with Abimelech, we read in verse 6 (verse 7 in Hebrew Bible) he ate the showbread


Leviticus 24:5 makes clear that only cohanim were allowed to eat the bread of the Presence set aside for display before the ark in the House of God (tabernacle). Each week 12 consecrated loaves of bread, representing the 12 tribes of Israel, were placed on the table in the temple. This bread was called the bread of the Prescence. David’s obedience to the kingly decree leads him to eat the bread that has been sanctified by the priests, which further shows how the priestly and kingly offices clashed for David...even though he did blend the monarchy with the priesthood ..and even ate the sacred bread of the tabernacle which was punishable by death in a way that no other Hebrew King ever did. David was a prophet, a priest and a king.....

All that goes directly in line with what occurred with Joshua and the tabernacle---and alot of makes sense when considering how Joshua's being in the tabernacle came AFTER a time of great defilment where the Lord was greatly angry (Exodus 32) at his people/threatened to kill them for their disobediance...and even took the Lord's materials to make false Gods. . At the battle with Amalek, he is chosen with Hur to support the hand of Moses that held the “rod of God” (Exodus 17:9). When the revelation was given to Moses at Mount Sinai, he headed the elders of Israel who accompanied Moses on the way to the summit. Joshua, however, was admitted with his leader to the very presence of the Lord, while Aaron and Hur remained below to look after the people (Exodus 24:9-14). It was during the prolonged absence of Moses that Aaron yielded to the clamors of the people, and made a Golden Calf as a visible image of the divinity who had delivered them from Egypt (Exodus 32:1-6).


At the intercession of Moses, Aaron was saved from the plague which smote the people (Deuteronomy 9:20, Exodus 32:35), although it was to Aaron’s tribe of Levi that the work of punitive vengeance was committed (Exodus 32:26)....and with all that in mind, it make sense as to why Joshua was so dilligent in being in the tabernacle. He had seen what Moses had seen on the mountaintop and how the people of Israel disrespected it---and Joshua in many ways would have most likely been trying to protect the tabernacle:

Ex 33:7-13
7 Moses took his tent and pitched it outside the camp, far from the camp, and called it the tabernacle of meeting. And it came to pass that everyone who sought the LORD went out to the tabernacle of meeting which was outside the camp. 8So it was, whenever Moses went out to the tabernacle, that all the people rose, and each man stood at his tent door and watched Moses until he had gone into the tabernacle. 9And it came to pass, when Moses entered the tabernacle, that the pillar of cloud descended and stood at the door of the tabernacle, and the LORD talked with Moses. 10All the people saw the pillar of cloud standing at the tabernacle door, and all the people rose and worshiped, each man in his tent door. 11So the LORD spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend. And he would return to the camp, but his servant Joshua the son of Nun, a young man, did not depart from the tabernacle.

​

Again, Joshua alone was allowed to accompany Moses up the holy mountain where the tablets of the law were received (Ex 24:13–14). And it was he who stood watch at the temporary tent of meeting Moses set up before the tabernacle was erected (Ex 33:11)...the later of which only the LEVITIES were allowed entrance into for ministry.

As said earlier, the place Joshua was guarding was not truly the tabernacle set up where only Levites could enter--and thus it makes sense as to why he was allowed to guard it....and seeing that aids in realizing that he wasn't necessarily a priest for doing so.


With Joshua himself, he was deemed as Moses's aid...as well as the general of the army itself. And since he was Moses's minister (Exodus 24) and one who chose to pursue leadership qualities, he was allowed into the tabernacle with Moses (Exodus 33:11). He was by Moses side for the great majority of the 40 years they wandered in the wilderness...and after Moses’ death Joshua became the next great leader of Israel. As Joshua was the one chosen to actually lead the children of Israel into the Promised Land.

Because of Joshua being so close to Moses and chosen as the next leader, his closenesss with the tabernacle is not surprising....and we see that leadership in action continually. Joshua was elected to represent his own tribe of Ephraim when the 12 spies were sent into Canaan to look over the land. Only Joshua and Caleb, representing the tribe of Judah, were ready to follow God’s will and take immediate possession of the land (see Nu 14:26–34). The rest of the Israelites of that generation were condemned to die in the desert. Even Moses died short of the goal and was told to turn everything over to Joshua. God promised to guide and strengthen Joshua, just as he had Moses (Dt 31:23; cf. Jos 1:5 and note).

Joshua was God’s chosen servant (see Deuteronomy 24:29 and Dt 34:5) to bring Moses’ work to completion and establish Israel in the promised land...with Moses placing the same spirit of leadership on him that he had. To that special divine appointment he was faithful—as the leader of God’s army, as the administrator of God’s division of the land and as God’s spokesman for promoting Israel’s covenant faithfulness. In all this he was a striking OT type (foreshadowing) of Christ (Hebrews 4:1, Hebrews 4:6–8).


There are a myriad of reasons why he would have been allowed in the tabernacle that do not have to suppose he was somehow a Levite.

As said best in Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

it not being easy to account for it, that Moses should depart alone, unaccompanied by Joshua, who always attended him, and no sufficient reason is given why he should stay behind in the tabernacle; as for private devotion, which this was not a place for; or for judging the causes of the people in the absence of Moses, which we never find he did or to guard the tabernacle, to be a watchman in it, or even at the head of a watch over it, which, as it seemed unnecessary, so was an employment too mean for him; the words therefore may be rendered as they are by some, and the rather, as there is an accent which makes a considerable stop on the word translated a "young man" (w), "and he turned again to the camp", and "his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man"; that is, along with him; they both returned to the camp, and then it follows, "he", i.e. the Lord, "departed not out of the tabernacle", but continued there; to whom Moses afterwards returned and had the following discourse: a learned man (x) thinks that the grand tabernacle is here meant, yet unfinished, though not the final erection of it; and that here is a dislocation in the history, and supposes that Moses having been forty days absent, found upon his return a good progress made in the work of the tabernacle, and the ornaments and utensils belonging thereunto: and as soon as the wood work of the tabernacle was finished, he ordered it to be put together; but because the tabernacle had neither a door to it, nor were the hangings of the outer court finished, therefore Joshua the servant of Moses, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle, but remained there to preserve it from being polluted: but it is a mistake of his that the tabernacle had not a door to it, and it is strange he should make it, when it is twice mentioned in the preceding verses; and since the pillar of cloud and the Lord in it were there, no man durst draw near to pollute it, so that there was no need of Joshua's being there to preserve it; and besides, it was after this Moses went up to the mount and stayed another forty days and forty nights, see Exodus 34:4.

​

 

[Lulav]

Joshua 19:49 When they had made an end of dividing the land for inheritance by their coasts, the children of Israel gave an inheritance to Joshua the son of Nun among them:

In Joshua 19, the discussion of who got which chunk of land but when it comes to Joshua, it is worded this way.. almost indicating that Israel out of its inheritance gave a portion to this Gentile...

Nun, in the Hebrew Bible, was a man from the Tribe of Ephraim since Joseph's wife is Egyptian where the tribe of Ephraim sprang from..

I read this as the land was divided up by tribes, but for Joshua, since he was the replacement for Moses and was the one to bring them into the promised land (His name means Yehoshua, sound familiar?) then he was given this honor of choosing the land he wanted. He choose land within his Tribe, that of Ephraim.

Joshua was certainly not a Gentile, sorry Vis. A Gentile did not lead Israel into the promised land.

It is interesting that he died at the same age as his great grandfather, Joseph, 110. Is that just a coincidence or are we being pointed to how Yosef saved his family (Israel) and Hoshea or Yehoshua, was the one to
bring Israel into the promised land.


This place he chose was called, 'Timnath-heres' meaning: The territory of the sun.

 

[Yahudim]

So, we are agree that neither Caleb nor Joshua were gentile?

 

[visionary]

We know that Ephraim is not one of the twelve tribes.. and if we go by the mother line.. today Joshua wouldn't even be considered a candidate for being made a citizen of Israel because he is not a Jew by today's standards.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

We know that Ephraim is not one of the twelve tribes.. .

You're speaking in regards to what Revelations 14 says, correct? For that's the only place where Ephraim is not mentioned---although many have noted where Joseph can be synonomous with Ephraim and there is no conflict with Joseph and Manasseah being listed since Manesseah/Ephraim had their tribal inheritance split between them...and with Ephraim being the greater of the two, it'd make sense why his name is deemed "Joseph"

and if we go by the mother line.. today Joshua wouldn't even be considered a candidate for being made a citizen of Israel because he is not a Jew by today's standards

It's interesting to consider how it wasn't always the case that Jewishness had to be determined patrilinearly since the scriptures do not always show such to be true. I'm reminded of Joshua 17:3-4. For although women did not traditionally inherit property in Israelite society, Moses put justice ahead of tradition and gave these 5 women mentioned the land they deserved (Numbers 27:1-11). In fact, God told Moses to add a law that would help other women in similar circumstances inherit property as well...and Joshua, in his time, was carrying out that law. Numbers 27 gives more information on the issue. For up to that point, the Hebrew Law gave sons alone the right to inherit. But the daughters of Zelophehad, having no brothers, came to Moses to ask for their father's possessions. God told Moses that if a man died without sons, his inheritance would go to his daughters. But the daughters could keep it only if they married within their own tribe, probably so the territorial lines would remain intact (Numbers 36:5-12)


Some of this goes into even greater ramifications when considering the very line of Christ---and why its the case that he had to have TWO Geneologies, with Luke being considered as Mary's genealogy and Luke 3:23-38 causing many to take issue. The focus is often upon Luke 3:23 when it comes to the character of Heli, who may've been Joseph's father-in-law. Matthew's genealogy goes back to Abraham and shows that Jesus was related to all Jews (Matthew 1), whereas Luke's genealogy goes back to Adam and shows that Jesus is related to all human beings...consistent with Luke's picture of Jesus as the Savior of the whole world. Many have said that it was from the line of Mary that his lineage came from rather than Joseph, whereas some say that both made a difference...and some of this was discussed elsewhere--such as here since they show how Mary's mother was the sister of Elizibeth, who was descended from Levi..with that echoing the Davidic line that came to Christ through Joseph


On the issue of Geneology, many have said that the simplest explanation is that Matthew gives the geneology of Joseph who, though not Jesus's physical father, was regarded as his father by people generally (Luke 4:22, John 1:45, John 6:42, etc)....while Luke gives the geneology of Jesus through his mother Mary, the daughter of Eli. If so, Jesus is "of the Eli" in the sense of being his grandson while Jesus's relationship with Joseph is portrayed in the words, "son, as supposed"--implying not actually.

The Two geneologies also raise the question of how Jesus can claim the throne of his ancestor King David (Matthew 1:1)--as the argument against him is that even if Luke's geneology is of Mary and goes back to David, it doesn't help Jesus because descent, for purposes of inheriting kingship, cannot be counted supposedly throguh the mother. And if Joseph is not Jesus's physical father, his legal status as Jesus's adoptive father, even though adequate for establishing Jesus's legal right to King David's throne (Matthew 1:24-25), is insufficient to fulfill the prophecy of II Samuel 7:12 to David, "And when your days are fulfilled and you sleep with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who will issue from your bowels." But there is descent from David, whether it applies to Joseph or Mary, and no genealogy could cope with the radically unique circumstances of Jesus's birth as God's "only and unique" son (John 1:18), with no human physical father. Such circumstances transcend pedestrian application of genealogies. One could say that Yeshua was the seed of David, physically from his loins, in the manner and to the degree that these circumstances admit (Matthew 1:16).

and if we go by the mother line.. today Joshua wouldn't even be considered a candidate for being made a citizen of Israel because he is not a Jew by today's standards

How those standards changed from father to mother are rather interesting.
The ministry of " Jewish Virtual Library, had some good info on the issue---as seen in an article one can find online entitled "Who is a Jew? - The Jewish Virtual Library" ( )

In their words:

About Matrilineal Descent
Many people have asked why traditional Judaism uses matrilineal descent to determine Jewish status, when in all other things (tribal affiliation, priestly status, royalty, etc.) patrilineal descent is used.
The Torah does not specifically state anywhere that matrilineal descent should be used; however, there are several passages in the Torah where it is understood that the child of a Jewish woman and a non-Jewish man is a Jew, and several other passages where it is understood that the child of a non-Jewish woman and a Jewish man is not a Jew.

In Deuteronomy 7:1-5, in expressing the prohibition against intermarriage, G-d says "he [ie, the non-Jewish male spouse] will cause your child to turn away from Me and they will worship the gods of others." No such concern is expressed about the child of a non-Jewish female spouse. From this, we infer that the child of a non-Jewish male spouse is Jewish (and can therefore be turned away from Judaism), but the child of a non-Jewish female spouse is not Jewish (and therefore turning away is not an issue).

Leviticus 24:10 speaks of the son of an Israelite woman and an Egyptian man as being "among the community of Israel" (i.e., a Jew).

On the other hand, in Ezra 10:2-3, the Jews returning to Israel vowed to put aside their non-Jewish wives and the children born to those wives. They could not have put aside those children if those children were Jews.

Several people have asked how King David could be a Jew given that one of his female ancestors, Ruth, was not a Jew. This conclusion is based on two faulty premises: first of all, Ruth was a Jew, and even if she wasn't, that would not affect David's status as a Jew. Ruth converted to Judaism before marrying Boaz and bearing Obed. See Ruth 1:16, where Ruth states her intention to convert. After Ruth converted, she was a Jew, and all of her children born after the conversion were Jewish as well. But even if Ruth were not Jewish at the time Obed was born, that would not affect King David's status as a Jew, because Ruth is an ancestor of David's father, not of David's mother, and David's Jewish status is determined by his mother.
​

For a good book on the issue that may give more detail on the issue, one can go online and investigate a work called "Living Judaism: the complete guide to Jewish belief, tradition, and practice" ( ) by Wayne D. Dosick.

By today's standards, as it concerns Joshua and his ancestry including an Egyptian (Joseph's wife), there'd really be no escaping fully all aspects of his Gentile heritage. For the most part he was mixed in ancestry--just as a white person with a great-great grandmother who's Carribean can never escape that being apart of their blood/heritage no matter how many generations go by.....even though they are primarily apart of white culture/have that side of them more emphasized.

 

[Brother Sammy]

So, we are agree that neither Caleb nor Joshua were gentile?

Exactly! They were of the Children of Yisrael! I think those who ascribe to the belief that they were Gentiles also believe in the heretical " two house" theology which holds no biblical merit.

 

[Yahudim]

We know that Ephraim is not one of the twelve tribes.. and if we go by the mother line.. today Joshua wouldn't even be considered a candidate for being made a citizen of Israel because he is not a Jew by today's standards.

If Ephraim is not one of the twelve tribes then neither is Judah or Levi. Ephraim is not one of Jacob's grandchildren anymore. Joseph's children were adopted by Jacob. I think you know what that means in terms of inheritance.

Easy G,

If you are going to use that standard to determine someone's gentile heritage, then you better count King David among that number.

 

[Yahudim]

Exactly! They were of the Children of Yisrael! I think those who ascribe to the belief that they were Gentiles also believe in the heretical " two house" theology which holds no biblical merit.

 

[Brother Sammy]

My good friend John Parsons who writes the Hebrew for Zola Levitt Ministries wrote on the subject of "2 house" theology or should I say ' theology ' on his Hebrew 4 Christians website

 

[Lulav]

So, we are agree that neither Caleb nor Joshua were gentile?

If we are to believe this:


Moses speaking:

Then all of you came to me and said, “Let us send men ahead to spy out the land for us and bring back a report about the route we are to take and the towns we will come to.” The idea seemed good to me; so I selected twelve of you, one man from each tribe.

From Deuteronomy 13

and he was reiterating what happened 39 years before when:

The Lord said to Moses,“Send some men to explore the land of Canaan, which I am giving to the Israelites. From each ancestral tribe send one of its leaders.”

From Numbers 13


All of them were leaders of the Israelites.

4These are their names:

from the tribe of Reuben, Shammua son of Zaccur;
5from the tribe of Simeon, Shaphat son of Hori;
6from the tribe of Judah, Caleb son of Jephunneh;
7from the tribe of Issachar, Igal son of Joseph;
8from the tribe of Ephraim, Hoshea son of Nun;
9from the tribe of Benjamin, Palti son of Raphu;
10from the tribe of Zebulun, Gaddiel son of Sodi;
11from the tribe of Manasseh (a tribe of Joseph), Gaddi son of Susi;
12from the tribe of Dan, Ammiel son of Gemalli;
13from the tribe of Asher, Sethur son of Michael;
14from the tribe of Naphtali, Nahbi son of Vophsi;
15from the tribe of Gad, Geuel son of Maki.



Levi and Joseph are missing. Ephraim and Manasseh take Josephs place and Levi's as well.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

In Joshua 19, the discussion of who got which chunk of land but when it comes to Joshua, it is worded this way.. almost indicating that Israel out of its inheritance gave a portion to this Gentile...

Nun, in the Hebrew Bible, was a man from the Tribe of Ephraim since Joseph's wife is Egyptian where the tribe of Ephraim sprang from..

Found I thought you'd be interested in, in light of how Ephraim/Manasseah were adopted by Jacob into the 12 tribes (despite their being Egyptian via their mother/how they grew up)--and with Ephraim and Manasseh, though physically half-Israelites, Gentiles in the truest sense.

:

• Joseph Foreshadows God's Jewish Agenda (Joseph, Ephraim and Manasse )

The subject of the blessing is very significant when it comes to studying the issue of passing on callings/responsibilities to others and (as was common in that culture) ADopting others into a tribe. There was nothing wrong with blessing Gentiles. For example, Jacob blessed the Pharaoh of Egypt, a rank pagan. In Genesis 47:7-10, the text declares, "and Jacob blessed Pharaoh…"

The passing of blessings from the hands of a godly man was for God himself to bless that person, individually. In other words when a righteous person passed a blessing to another person, God honored it without question. Nowhere in the significance of laying hands on another and speaking blessings be seen as clearly as it is seen in Genesis when Jacob blessed Ephraim and Manasseh, the two half-Egyptian (Gentile) sons of Joseph in Genesis 48:19-21 /Genesis 48 .

Genesis 48:3
Jacob said to Joseph, “God Almighty[a] appeared to me at Luz in the land of Canaan, and there he blessed me 4 and said to me, ‘I am going to make you fruitful and increase your numbers. I will make you a community of peoples, and I will give this land as an everlasting possession to your descendants after you.’

5 “Now then, your two sons born to you in Egypt before I came to you here will be reckoned as mine; Ephraim and Manasseh will be mine, just as Reuben and Simeon are mine. 6 Any children born to you after them will be yours; in the territory they inherit they will be reckoned under the names of their brothers. 7 As I was returning from Paddan,[b] to my sorrow Rachel died in the land of Canaan while we were still on the way, a little distance from Ephrath. So I buried her there beside the road to Ephrath” (that is, Bethlehem).

​

With Ephraim/Manasseh ( Genesis 41:51-53 , Genesis 46:19-21/ Genesis 46, Genesis 50:22-24 / Genesis 50, Numbers 1:9-11 / Numbers 1, Deuteronomy 33:16-18 / Deuteronomy 33, Joshua 14:3-5/ Joshua 14 , Joshua 16 , etc )Just before Jacob died, Joseph brought Ephraim and Manasseh to Jacob, and the two boys knelt before their grandfather. Jacob shocked everyone in the room when he crossed his hands putting his left hand on the head of Manasseh, the eldest son, and his right hand on the head of Ephraim, the younger son. It was the reverse order.



The blessing of Jacob that he gave his grand-children (especially Ephraim) consisted of the five most crucial parts of God's covenant with Israel. First, Jacob asked God to be Lord over Ephraim and Manasseh. Second, Jacob asked God to redeem Ephraim and Manasseh through the messenger of redemption. Third, Jacob gave to Ephraim and Manasseh his own name; that is, he adopted them. Fourth, Jacob gave the name of his forefathers to the boys further indicating their adoption as true sons of Israel. Fifth, Jacob asked God to make Ephraim and Manasseh into a great multitude of people. Clearly, Jacob's blessing of Ephraim and Manasseh by laying his hands upon their heads was the same as the blessings he had bestowed upon his natural born sons earlier.

Jacob's blessing, including the adoption of Ephraim and Manasseh as his own sons, replacing the former Egyptian heritage of these two young men with a new Hebrew heritage. Thus, Ephraim and Manasseh were drafted into Jacob's family. Like Paul noted in Romans 11, they became natural branches, full brothers with the other sons of Israel. This gave Ephraim and Manasseh the same responsibilities and rewards that the natural-born sons already had. The Egyptian identity of Ephraim and Manasseh remained only in the sense of ethnicity/cultural background and origins--but outside of that, they were now considered to be "Hebrews" and they they gained the identity of true Israelites...becoming partakers of the same covenants as the other sons of Israel, and subject to the same commandments and responsibilities as Jacob's natural born sons.

As soon as Jacob's hands touched their heads, and the words of blessings left his mouth, Ephraim and Manasseh became equal partakers of the root and the fatness of the natural olive tree that the apostle Paul wrote about in Romans 11:16-18 / Romans 11 :

"If some of the branches be broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them, to partake of the root and fatness of the olive tree."

​